Telecom Amnesty is a Really Bad Idea

I was behind a car the other day that had a bumper sticker, and I loved it. It said "I love my country but don't trust my Government". I really feel that way. I guess in short, I really don't trust many folks beyond my family to take care of me. You do not have to look far to see huge issues with our Government. Read up on the debacle of Social Security and how our Government has completely dropped the ball. How our current debt is the highest it has ever been. How FEMA completely blew it with Katrina. (On a side note: I actually believe FEMA should be disbanded, that is the job of the Red Cross, but more on that in another post.) How the Government has put our financial eggs in the basket with China, and every time China coughs our markets jump up and down. I guess what I am saying is that my opinion of our federal government is basically at an all time low, and all I really did was start paying attention.

So what did I do with this pent up frustration? Well what any good tech savvy yahoo would do, I started a blog! I pointed my horrible grammar skills and frequent misspellings directly at our federal government. Take that! :D So two days ago, I was all worked up about local issues relating to the Civil Liberties of citizens, and I made references to some local issues that occurred here in Georgia, along with a current issue in Oklahoma, and two historical issues. Well now I turn my attention to the future.

On the commute into work today, I was listening to a story on NPR [link]about a bill that has already passed the Senate Intelligence Committee and is now in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee [wikipedia] that would (among other things) grant full immunity to the telecommunications companies that willingly went along with the Bush administration in opening up their infrastructure to the Government to help in what is known as the warrantless wiretap program [wikipedia]

Folks, this is exactly what I am talking about in my earlier piece. The telecommunications industry does NOT deserve immunity. The reason is because if they are operating within the laws, then they have nothing to fear. Truth does not fear investigation. Now if you are worried that you may have broken laws, then yes, you do have something to fear. So when the telecommunications companies go running to Congress asking for immunity from something the government asked them (and paid them nicely) to help with, then that should raise alarm bells.

Now I know some of you are saying "Well they are just doing their duty to their country". My response to that is pretty flat, "No they are not!". There was already a system in place called FISA [wikipedia], and although it had issues it did serve its purpose. If there were problems then it should have been first addressed inside the framework of the current FISA laws. This program is so shady that even John Ashcroft has serious doubts about it [washingtonpost.com] What really really bothers me is that the only reason we know about this secret surveillance is because somebody on the inside disclosed it. Otherwise, we still would not know about it, and that is very very scary. What else don't we know about?

The real problem is that the people we elect to protect us are the same folks that are giving away our freedoms. This applies to both Democrats and Republicans. On a side note, at one point I thought that Democrats where protectors of Civil Liberties but they are just as complicit as Republicans, just listen to Senator Dianne Feinstein in the NPR report, ugh, but more on that in another post.) Once power has been gained by the Government you are very very unlikely to get the power away from the Government. Although this tool is said to be used against foreign enemies, do not be so naive to believe that they will not use that tool against Americans. (Watergate anyone?) When you have absolute power, and no oversight, then you can do whatever you want because nobody is going to call you on it.

Here is the summary:
1) If you are within the law, then you don't deserve immunity.
2) When you take away the courts ability to decide issues then what you do is take power away from individuals and put them into the hands of the government. Which is always a bad thing.

Here are some links that describe this in a much better way than I can.

eff.org
salon.com Greenwald
saolon.com Greenwald Interview
technewsworld.com - Technical Whistle Blower
Google News
washingtonpost.com Ashcroft in Hospital
NPR Coverage

If you live in Georgia, and this bothers you, take a moment to write to Senator Saxby Chambliss who has already voted for this in the Intelligence Committee, and tell him your feelings on this topic.

Why Civil Liberties are Critical for America!

This will be a short post tonight, but I am very wired up.

For some reason in our country, when you mention Civil Liberties[wikipedia], you are immediately pegged as a nut-job and a conspiracy theorist. I find this to be very disturbing. So to start with, what is the definition of "Civil Liberties"?

Civil liberties is the name given to freedoms that completely protect the individual from government. Civil liberties set limits for government so that it can not abuse its power and interfere with the lives of its citizens.

A few items have come to my attention and I want to share them with you.

Situation 1:
I do not have all the details, but some of my fellow Ron Paul supporters here in the Metro Atlanta area went to a local intersection next to a mall, and waved signs at passing cars. They were standing on a street corner that was nearest the Mall. The mall security guard told them that if they did not leave they would be arrested. Then the real police showed up and said that they were not allowed to hand out information because it was solicitation. They also cited this as a state law. I am not a lawyer, but these seem very very poor reasons. Your only real option at that point is to be arrested and then fight it. Otherwise you just have to go home. Since most of us do not want the hassle and can not afford the attorney's fees, we just drop it and go home.

Situation 2:
In Kennesaw, GA, it is my understanding that to wave signs on the side of the road you need to request a permit. municode.com Now, I have not actually applied for this and some folks are checking into the validity of this, but still. So now you need a permit from the government to protest against the government? What is to keep them from saying "no" to a permit. If you still protest without a permit, I assume they will arrest you or fine you. These do not seem to be very good options.

[Update 11/14/2007 -- I have learned some additional information about this incident. First off, the sign waving group was approached by a cop, and he was the one that told them that they needed a permit. A citizen contacted a city official to check these facts and was told that the cop was incorrect. So the city is clear, but the officer was wrong. But then again, if you told the officer he was wrong, his response would probably have been "Sir if you continue to argue with me, I'll be forced to arrest you". Arguing with cops usually never has a good outcome in the short run.]

Situation 3:
Research the following individual: Paul Jacob. http://www.freepauljacob.com/the-story/ He was arrested going door to door getting petitions for a new law in Oklahoma. His crime? He was not from Oklahoma. The sentence he is looking at is 10 years. Former presidential candidate Steve Forbes wrote a piece called “Has North Korea Annexed Oklahoma?”. This is serious business.

Situation 4:
Talk with an African American over the age of 60, and ask them what it was like to grow up without any civil liberties.

Situation 5:
Go and read the stories of Japanese Americans during World War II, and what it was like to be interned during the war just because they were Japanese [wikipedia]

The other day, I became interested in our first amendment and actually went and read what it said:

First Amendment [wikipedia]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So in the situation 1 and 2 which have to do with Assembly, you could probably argue and maybe win because of the "right of the people peaceably to assemble". Or maybe not these days. It is easy to say "things are not that bad" because your life is going well, but if you ever try and make a change in the world, you will find a large uphill battle against the entrenched power structure. If we wait too long you may find a wall instead of a hill.

By now, you are probably thinking, "Ok, Cade has lost it" but just think about it. Put yourself in a position where you have no voice, and no power, and no authority to speak up. Rights are lost a little bit at a time, and do not ever forget: Our Government works for the citizens that elect it, but right now, it seems the citizens work for the Government.


Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. -- Thomas Jefferson

Don't Be A Sheep!!!

[touched up on 11/12/07 for grammatical errors and clarity]

So I have been putting a lot of thought lately into how our political system + our media work together. Basically we mainly get our news from just a handful of sources: Fox, CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, AP, Reuters, etc. So if the news does not come from these sources, very few folks take the time to go and research the issues in any more depth.

This is a very powerful and scary setup. For example, the news media have reported that this may be the most expensive campaign ever. Well surprise, surprise, who is the lucky beneficiary of these new found millions of dollars? That would be the Main Stream Media (or MSM for short).

The MSM also wants to see the most interesting stories. What is more interesting than a Clinton vs Giuliani race. So that is how they are steering these elections. I saw a CNN quote that said (I'll dig it up and reference it), that said during a certain time frame, John McCain was mentioned 90,000 times while Ron Paul was only mentioned 4,000. It gets even worse when they use words like "last place", "dead last", "unelectable", "kook", or "flake". How do you expect people to look beyond this in the current "sound bit" culture of 30 second news stories. (Just ask Richard Jewel how fairly the media painted him).

So when it came to Ron Paul, it did not take long for the MSM to completely sideline him and ridicule him. Well his supporters (including myself) finally got fed up, decided to setup a Money Bomb. (http://www.thisNovember5th.com) This is where, we all gave in one day. The campaign has nothing to do with this at all. Think about that. The campaign did not lift one finger. All they had to so was keep the servers running. Well at the end of the day, we set a new record for Republicans: $4.2 Million!!!!! Ron Paul's campaign raised more money in one day, than Mike Huckabee raised all year! [wikipedia] Well, after that one day, now all the sudden the MSM all want to talk with him.

So what now? Well we keep the momentum rolling. More and more folks are signing up at the meetup groups (http://ronpaul.meetup.com). He has actually brought in another $500,000 in the following 5 days after the money bomb, and he is getting much more attention by the MSM that seem to make or break candidates. So the kind folks who setup the initial Money Bomb are now setting their sights even higher. On the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, they are setting up a second Money Bomb: http://www.teaparty07.com

So you can see for yourselves, here is a phenomenally well done video on the three stages of the MSM in regards to Ron Paul:

Stage 1: Belittle and Sideline him
Satge 2: Coverage of the Money Bomb
Stage 3: Positive Interviews with him now

Take a look at see for your self.



So in conclusion, I guess what I'm saying is, the MSM serves its purpose, but folks, with the power of the internet, when deciding which person is best to run our country, please please please, please, Don't Be A Sheep!!! Don't just follow the herd, take the time to go through and read about the candidates (in both parties!), understand their positions. Then vote. If you have not taken the time to do any research, then let me give you a thought "Don't Vote". Seriously, because if you don't take the time to research the issues, then you could very well, be putting us on the path to danger (both fiscally and physically) that so many of us are trying desperately to get us out of....

Ron Paul vs Ben Bernanke

[touched up on 11/12/07 for grammatical errors and clarity]

I love the internet and how readily available information has become. Ron Paul and Ben Bernanke has a discussion the other day, and this clip was posted online within hours. I am not an economist and did not quite understand all the acronyms, but I did followed along enough to see where Ron Paul was going. Ben Bernanke is the Chief of the Federal Reserve. If you don't know what the Federal Reserve is then you should take the time to learn about it and it's history. [wikipedia] To the average American it is just a buzz word used by the news, but in reality it has become a central linchpin (or bottleneck depending on your view) of our economy. The previous Fed Chief was Alan Greenspan which is a name most people recognize, even if they don't understand what his job was. I wrote a bit about the Federal Reserve in an earlier post:

Think Getting Rid of IRS is a joke? Think again...

So watch this clip then keep reading.



So after watching this I had to ask myself,

1) Would George Bush be able to discuss this type issue?
2) Would any other candidate be able to discuss these issues at this level of detail?

And the simple answer is NO! Ron Paul is the only person who understand the financial crisis our country is heading for, and the only one with the will to do something about it!

So if you are skeptic that he was just blowing smoke during that question and answer, then maybe a well respected CNBC Journalist backing up Ron Paul might help you to understand this problem. Kudlow said: "Ron Paul took Fed Chief Ben Bernanke to the woodshed". Enough Said: